Ebook Managing corporate reputation and risk: Developing a strategic approach to corporate integrity using knowledge management – Part 1

Introduction viiPart One: The Case for Greater Integrity Chapter One: New Ethical Concerns for the Modern Corporation  Chapter Two: Making the Business Case for an Integrated Program o

Developing a Strategic Approach to Corporate Integrity Using Knowledge

Management

Developing a Strategic Approach to Corporate Integrity Using Knowledge

Management

D N

Amsterdam Boston Heidelberg London New York Oxford

Paris San Diego San Francisco Singapore Sydney Tokyo

any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Recognizing the importance of preserving what has been written, Elsevier Science prints its books on acid-free paper whenever possible.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

 Corporate image  Corporations—Moral and ethical aspects  Business ethics.

 Integrity  Risk management  Knowledge management I Title.

HD..N 

.–dc



British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

The publisher offers special discounts on bulk orders of this book.

For information, please contact:

Manager of Special Sales

Introduction vii

Part One: The Case for Greater Integrity

Chapter One: New Ethical Concerns for the Modern Corporation  Chapter Two: Making the Business Case for an Integrated

Program of Ethics and Knowledge Management  Chapter Three: Key Areas of Risk: Where Knowing What is

Happening Really Matters  Chapter Four: How Have Corporations Responded? 

Part Two: A Program for Corporate Integrity

Chapter Five: Moving Beyond Stage Two  Chapter Six: Establishing and Managing an Ethical Framework  Chapter Seven: Understanding the Value of Knowledge and Risk

Chapter Eight: Integrating Ethics, Risk, Standards, and

Knowledge Management into an Ethical Framework  Chapter Nine: Creating a Culture of Integrity and Knowledge

v

Risk Management  Chapter Eleven: Choosing and Implementing Standards 

This book is about what a company needs to do to manage its integrityand to avoid making the kind of mistakes (an Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] fine, a product safety disaster, an employ-ment lawsuit, an overseas worker exploitation charge) that can lead topenalties, a loss of share value, and a damaged corporate reputation.Integrity in business has never been more important In many ways,companies have a lot more to lose today than even  years ago, simplybecause the potential for being caught and exposed—by activists,lawyers, prosecutors, government agencies or the media—is greaterthan ever before The penalties are larger—loss of share value, con-sumer boycotts, lawsuits, greater regulation—and more personal, withexecutives and board members increasingly being held accountable forthe actions of the company with heavy personal fines and even impris-onment The triple combination of personal-incentive–based pay, newlevels of empowerment, and a leaner, more aggressive economy meansthat employees at all levels, as never before, are caught in that tug-of-war between doing what is right and doing what their superiors wantand need, in order to achieve unrealistic targets To avoid these types

of disasters, companies need to do more than simply give money away

in philanthropic gestures and claim that they are “socially ble.” They are going to have to start actively managing their risk in amuch more effective way

responsi-Putting aside some obvious cases of pure malfeasance on the part

of corporate executives in recent scandals, the fact is that most

vii

makers, corporate officers, or board members simply don’t know what is going on in their own organization There are hundreds ofgood examples which demonstrate that if executives or senior managers had only known what was happening, they would have taken preventative action The fact that they didn’t know provides acompelling case for better knowledge management in the moderncompany.

What do companies need to do in order to avoid making costly andself-destructive mistakes? In this book, we look at the best-practicetechniques that companies can use to protect their integrity and toavoid these costly blunders

There are three important areas of focus First, a company has toactively manage its process for ensuring corporate integrity Thismeans telling your employees that you expect—that is, require—ethical behavior and then putting together a better process for encour-aging, monitoring, and enforcing that behavior by having employees

at all levels of the company participate actively in anticipating andresolving ethical or legal issues In short, companies need to establish

a strong and effective ethical framework

Second, a company has to actively gain a better understanding ofwhat is happening both internal to the company and in the outsideworld so that it can sense potential problems and react to them in aresponsive and ethical way The good news is that never have we had

so much knowledge and information at our fingertips or better niques and systems to help us access, analyze, and act on that knowl-

tech-edge This process is called knowledge management.

After all, whether it is a board not knowing that executives are pleting off-the-books partnerships with company money or seniormanagement having no idea that operational employees are dumpingtoxic wastes down local wells, these things are still essentially colossalfailures of knowledge management And as new punitive regulationsfrom the U.S sentencing guidelines agency and recent legislation such

com-as the Sarbanes-Oxley act demonstrate, the excuse that “we didn’t

more than ever before, expected—again, required—to know about and

be responsible for the actions of their employees Increasingly, a failure

to manage company integrity can lead to severe penalties for thecompany and for executives themselves In today’s climate, “we didn’tknow” is no longer considered an excuse; it is considered to be negligence

What is needed then is to apply many of the same knowledge agement techniques and systems that have worked so successfullyduring the past  years in the operational world to a company-wideprocess for actively managing risk It isn’t that expensive, and it isn’teven that difficult, but it doesn’t just happen on its own; it’s somethingthat companies need to actively manage

man-As the more progressive companies can demonstrate, applying thesetypes of knowledge management techniques have many importantbenefits Knowledge risk management (KRM) allows a company toanticipate issues, to avoid risks, and to behave more responsively andacceptably It also applies many of the same tenets of quality man-agement and can be used to improve processes, reduce waste and costs,and increase productivity In short, using KRM to actively manage acompany’s integrity moves a company one step up the evolutionaryladder toward becoming both a more ethical and a more efficient organization

Finally, not only is it important that companies actively managetheir integrity, but it is also important that they can demonstrate

to the outside world, including investors, activists, and consumers,that they are doing so For this, a company needs to apply internationally recognized standards and to report their performanceagainst those standards in a clear, accurate, and verifiable way.This can best be achieved using new triple–bottom-line reportingtechniques that provide a broader and more accurate view of theirorganization’s activities—financial, corporate governance, social, andenvironmental—for shareholders, analysts, pressure groups, and themedia

actively pursuing KRM, and reporting on those efforts usingtriple–bottom-line reporting techniques—are key to managingintegrity in the modern corporation It has never been more easily andefficiently done, and it has never been more important.

The Case for Greater Integrity

New Ethical Concerns for the Modern Corporation

A -month-old child dies from drinking bacteria-laden apple juiceafter a company ignores advice concerning the product’s safety Aslaughterhouse is found dumping waste, chicken blood, and entrailsinto one of Mississippi’s main water systems A children’s safety seatmanufacturer fails to reveal to the public dangerous defects in its carseats, cribs, and strollers that kill two babies and injure more than others Enron collapses, costing employees millions of dollars inpension losses Merrill Lynch agrees to pay $ million in fines fortouting stocks that its own analysts expected to lose money Hundreds

of listed companies are forced to restate their profits, caught red-handed in financial manipulation and deception

Why do these things continue to happen? Just when economists,politicians, and business leaders were declaring the final triumph offree-market capitalism over central planning or government interven-tion in markets—just when the doctrine of corporate voluntary com-pliance was beginning to make headway against overregulation—itseems as if all the concerns and accusations levied by pressure groupsagainst companies are justified

Maybe it is because we were beginning to believe the constantupbeat advertising, the incessant almost orwellian re-branding, theslogans, the music, the pictures of happy children, pristine lakes, anddedicated employees that fill the airwaves, billboards, and the



activism from anti-capitalists, corporations over the past  years haveclambered to raise their ethical profiles by presenting themselves—through philanthropy, community assistance, public relations pro-grams, and advertisements—as caring and socially responsiblecompanies.

We found ourselves suddenly disillusioned again, though, by a series of company scandals in /, including those that led to the most devastating bankruptcies in corporate history Of more concern, however, is that those executive-led accounting scandals are only the tip of the iceberg Companies are continuing to

do unethical and harmful things much as they always have, and theycontinue to be caught and fined in record amounts There are manyexamples

• In  BP-Amoco pleaded guilty to a felony charge

involving the illegal dumping of toxic waste at its Endicott oilfield on the North Slope and was fined $ million in civil

and criminal penalties

• According to a report by the Michigan Occupational Safetyand Health Administration (MIOSHA) following a -monthinvestigation, top Ford officials were well informed of the life-threatening hazards at their Dearborn, Michigan power plantbefore the explosion in  that killed  workers and severelyinjured  others According to MIOSHA, the reason, in part,that the study took so long to complete, was general

obstruction in the investigation by Ford, including refusal tomake safety records and other documents available The reportrevealed that the gas explosion would not have occurred if

Ford had installed a ventilation system that had been

recommended by an internal Ford audit, by its insurance

carrier, by an outside consulting firm, and by a joint

Ford–United Auto Workers report In September of that year,Ford agreed to pay $ million in settlement.

agreed in  to pay $ million in settlement and $

million more to improve the racial climate in the company

The story was carried in newspapers and on television

worldwide and came on the back of a devastating recording

of executives in a  meeting, reported in the New York

Times, using racial slurs against minority employees even

as they discussed destroying documents linked to the

lawsuit.

The list of company disasters goes on and on: Enron, Tyco, GlobalCrossing, Coca-Cola, BP-Amoco, De Beers It is not only largemultinationals, of course Small and medium-sized companies con-tinue to be found dumping toxic wastes, violating employment legislation, and creating and distributing unsafe products

• Central Industries, a Mississippi poultry waste processor, wasassessed some $ million in fines and damages for dumpingslaughterhouse waste—including feathers, entrails, and bodyparts—into a tributary of the Pearl River, part of Mississippi’scentral water supply.

• DoubleClick, the Internet advertising business, was forced tosuspend its policy of implanting electronic surveillance files—cookies—on Web surfers’ hard drives without their

knowledge Accused of using information collected to compileand sell user profiles linked to e-mails (and therefore namesand addresses), the company was forced to restrict its onlineprofiling service through a settlement made after several statesbegan legal action under the Consumer Protection Act Notonly is its brand name now synonymous with privacy

violations on the Internet, but its share value has plummeted,

it has been the subject of a Federal Trade Commission

inquiry, has faced investigations by the states of Michigan andNew York, and is involved in six related lawsuits

in the United States agreed to pay $. million as settlementafter the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

charged the company with failure to inform the CPSC or thepublic of product defects with its cribs, strollers, car-seat

carriers, and high chairs that caused the deaths of two babiesand injured more than  children.

The litany of callous, illegal, and unethical corporate behavior isbreathtaking Yet, none of these calamities came about because ofnatural disasters or unforeseeable events: They were man made andeasily predictable They came about either because company employ-ees were purposely pursuing policies outside of boundaries of the

public’s ethical acceptance (a failure of a company’s ethical policy), or

almost worse, executives and board members did not know what

poli-cies their company was pursuing (a failure of knowledge management).

T  C

As a result, of course, there has been a severe and predictable lash The combined effect of the  scandals and the collapse in thedot-com market in the United States, Europe, and Japan has resulted

back-in record bankruptcies, plungback-ing share prices, and unprecedentedpenalties and fines for once well-known and trusted companies Newlegislation in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan is set to ensuregreater transparency and reporting on corporate governance, social,and environmental issues, requiring companies to begin demonstrat-ing greater transparency by adding corporate governance, social, andenvironmental performance reviews to their annual reports

In the United States, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulating financialservice companies has been rushed into existence in the face of scan-dals, cobbled together with a frightening juxtaposition of all-encom-passing rules and special exemptions Chief executives now have toconfirm by signature the validity of their financial reports, at risk of

turn out to be invalid Those accountancy groups that remain—after Andersen’s ignominious collapse—have pledged to apply un-precedented rigor in future audits And the public perception of the integrity of business advertising and business leaders is at recordlows.

Further, as revelations of corporate wrongdoing have surfaced andthe general outrage at corporate misbehavior has grown, penalties havebecome more stringent and more focused on personal, rather than cor-porate, responsibility Each week brings footage of the newest “perpwalk,” with company executives, pale and bewildered, occasionallyhandcuffed, being escorted into court, with somber lawyers at theirside In the United States the Sentencing Guidelines Commission hasmade it clear that executives and board members who have not takenthe appropriate precautions to guard against illegal or dangerous activ-ities by their company can be held personally responsible—throughfines and imprisonment—when these catastrophes do occur Australiahas just enacted a similar set of laws in its Commonwealth CriminalCode, and in  Canada passed the Toughest Environmental Penal-ties Act, which includes a SWAT team to sweep down on businessesand allows fines for individual employees and executives of up to $million (Canadian) per day, with jail terms of up to  years

At the same time, the Internet and CNN now provide a new andpowerful communication medium for “business bashing,” and a greatlyexpanded and voracious business press combine with powerful andeffective nongovernmental organizations and pressure groups toprovide unprecedented levels of scrutiny of company behavior Thismakes companies vulnerable to almost instant repercussions for a cor-porate blunder A corporate scandal can overwhelm a company in amatter of days, sullying reputations—Nike, Firestone, Enron, Tyco,Andersen—and leading to plunging share values An incident involv-ing child welfare, a product safety claim, or an Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) violation can quickly erode investor confidence,and if egregious enough, once publicized by pressure groups, can even

ibility, demoralizing the employees, and ultimately threatening thecompany’s “license to operate.” Punishment for bad behavior can beruthless, particularly by shareholders, analysts, and banks.

Affected by a new level of global turmoil that began with /, theglobal economy remains weak, promising to keep markets unstable forsome time Yet those markets—particularly Wall Street—remainfocused on the all-important quarterly profits report This continues

to drive companies to take extraordinary measures—and risks—inorder to maintain their share price in a never-ending struggle to main-tain the impression of high growth

This weakened economy, of course, only compounds the relentlesspressures that force companies to cut costs, find ways of generatingever greater efficiencies, and expand their reach into global markets

In fact, with the downturn in the global economy since , the sure to perform has increased, as companies continue to announceweak quarterly results and poor long-term forecasts With fudging thenumbers no longer an option, this has driven organizations to con-tinue to outsource, to expand their supplier base, or to relocate theirmanufacturing sites to developing countries, seeking lower labor costsand less regulation

pres-Of course, with the global extension of their supply chain, an nization assumes a greater level of risk—from labor issues, corruption,

orga-or loose environmental standards—that can affect their overseas ations, and once discovered, rock their operations at home These sorts

oper-of incidents can suddenly make a good company seem callously ferent and uncaring, with graphic pictures of poor working conditions

indif-or illegal chemical disposal being shown on the evening news inLondon, Toronto, or Chicago

W G C D B T

Yet, companies still continue to commit egregious blunders on analmost daily basis Why does this continue to happen? Why would a

(or chicken carcasses) despoiling the environment, putting workersand the public at risk, with a very good chance of being caught andfined? Why do companies continue to ignore critical audits or inter-nal warnings even though this may harm employees, the public, andultimately their own company’s reputation?

There have been many theories put forward about why good panies can do such bad things One possible explanation lies in thenew organizational and personal performance incentives that havebeen developed over the last decade and that have altered the tradi-tional, more hierarchical, risk-averse and approval-focused organiza-tional structures of the past As the de-layering and downsizingcontinues, employees today have at once both greater freedom ofaction and more personal responsibility than ever before

com-At the same time, personal incentive plans, ubiquitous now at everylevel of the organization, have made it possible for management tomanipulate and focus employee performance, increasing productivityand efficiency Working ever longer hours, a large component of theearnings of most salaried employees today are dependent upon achiev-ing goals that reflect the ultimate concern of the company itself, that

is, making the numbers each quarter

These efficiency improvements, however, have not come without aprice As expectations for lifetime employment and single-companyloyalty have faded, employees have become much more likely than everbefore to sue their company or to take a workplace complaint into litigation And with an increasing portion of their personal incomedependent upon bonuses that are tied to high performance, the riskthat employees will do whatever is necessary to achieve the desiredresults—cook the books, pay the bribe, or illegally dispose of wastematerials—continues to grow After all, despite their proclamations ofbeing an ethical company and considerable contributions to worthycauses, Enron employees were under no illusion that if they did notmake their quarterly numbers, they would lose a good portion of theirearnings and face being summarily fired

This feeling seems to be endemic to modern business A recentsurvey by the Ethics Resource Center found that  percent of respon-dents believed that their supervisors didn’t set good examples ofintegrity, and nearly the same number felt pressured to compromisetheir organization’s ethics on the job. When just less than one half of

a country’s employees are compromising their ethical standards underpressure from management, something is very wrong with our orga-nizational culture

In this type of culture, creativity and innovation soon became codewords for illegal or unethical policies It is a peculiar irony We in busi-ness have become so skilled at encouraging people through personalgain to be productive for the company as a whole that we have turned

a blind eye to the downside of this new attitude Today, more thanever before, unethical or illegal behavior instituted by “creative”employees (such as those at Andersen, Tyco, Enron, or Barings) canmean the destruction of the corporation itself

There have also been several fundamental changes to the tional structures of the modern corporation in the past decade thathave contributed to the likelihood of disasters With global expansion

organiza-of their supply chains, companies have inherited (usually unwillingly)extended responsibilities for the actions of third-party factories indeveloping countries, where their own reputation can be tarnished bylocal employment or environment violations Fair or not, for example,for many people Nike is now synonymous with the term “sweat shop”because of its ruinous association with poor Southeast Asian factorypractices A single major incident can be disastrous to a company’sreputation, and it takes a long time to regain that reputation throughgood works, or even, in Nike’s case, diligent attempts at reform

But We Didn’t Know

These are all contributory factors that may help to explain why companies continue to do things that are unethical and ultimately self-destructive However, apart from the more general issue of

new organizational structures and employee incentives, the mostobvious reason why companies continue to commit reckless and illegal

acts seems to be that few organizations are really very good at

knowl-edge and risk management (KRM).

After all, most corporate disasters—a product safety violation,employing underaged workers, or illegal disposal of wastes—are notthe sort of thing that company executives or board members wouldnormally endorse The reason most often cited when these disastrousincidents occur (these days, quite often in front of a judge) is thatsenior company leaders had no knowledge of what was taking place

in their company And, sadly, very often their claims of complete ignorance seem to be true

What is surprising is that despite all the new pressures that panies face and the new organizational structures and incentives thattempt employees toward successful performance at any cost, little hasbeen done to create a counterbalancing ethical climate in companies

com-As Stephen Albrecht, points out in his book, Crisis Management for

Corporate Self-Defense, too often executives have little sense of the

potential for a corporate disaster “Those things happen at other panies,” they respond “We’ve never had that kind of problem here, so

com-we don’t waste time worrying about it.”

On the whole, even large and sophisticated companies seldom have

a coordinated process for ensuring that ethical behavior exists Theethics program is usually much the same as it has been for the pastthree decades: weak, administered by human resources only when anew employee joins the company, and focused on important but essen-tially nonoperational ethical issues (lying, cheating, or misusingcompany property)

The ubiquitous pastel-framed company value statement can befound in most corporate canteens, and yet no one takes the statementseriously or applies it to their day-to-day work Boastful and challenging in tone, these statements are often focused more on inspiring employees to succeed in achieving their departmental targets than on any real concern for ethical behavior “At Enron,” says

Stuart Gilman, president of the Ethics Resource Center in Washington,D.C., “ethics was simply a piece of paper with three Ps—print, post[in the company lunch room], and then pray that something

is actually going to happen.” If anything, these meager attemptssimply undermine, through their very ineffectiveness, any real efforts

to instill in employees an appreciation for the need for strong ethicalbehavior

Nor have most companies tried to remedy the increased-risk ation structurally Safety and environmental policies are administered

situ-on a compartmentalized basis and are seldom coordinated cally There are quality assurance and occupational health and safetygroups, of course, but there are only tenuous links, in most compa-nies, between experts in safety, legal, human resources, and operations.With little formal communication between these groups, companiesalmost never have a formal mechanism for early identification of apotential risk to the company’s reputation, and when an incident doesoccur, companies seldom have a formal process for risk review, assess-ment, and resolution It is not uncommon for failures, in safety, incompliance, or in environmental policies, to be covered up, with littlefear of oversight or formal audits It happens every day in businessesacross the country and around the world, and the violations, fines, andproduct safety issues continue to mount

strategi-In fact, most real decisions that can cause a company disaster areinitially made at a first-level manager position, and only when thingshave gone very wrong do senior management, the chief executive, orboard members get involved And despite new legislation that requiresboard members to be actively engaged in the ethical and risk man-agement process of the company, most board members of Fortune companies have no practical role in operational risk managementissues Despite their own liability (for which insurance companies areincreasingly charging ever higher premiums), most board membersdon’t even know what risk management processes the company has in

place This is surely one of the most compelling knowledge management

issues ever raised.

of itself, but it has almost nothing to do with corporate social sibility in any real sense Beneficial to those receiving the money, ofcourse, the fact remains that handing out community grants doesn’tmake a company behave better or prevent a catastrophe from occur-ring And unfortunately, when a company boasts of being ethical andcaring and yet is found to be in violation of financial regulations orsocial or environmental laws, they only increase the impression thatmuch of the philanthropy and public displays of corporate socialresponsibility are nothing less than what has been termed “greenwash”

business research and analysis systems Safety and incident ment applications can present senior management with accuratereports on safety violations, identifying trends that can reveal poten-tially damaging risks to come In terms of new knowledge manage-ment techniques and information access, companies have never had it

manage-so good

Moreover, most of these techniques, processes, and systems exist—

or should exist—already in the modern company Enterprise resourceplanning systems provide key company-wide performance data, andenvironmental health and safety systems exist that can record trendsand provide early alert and incident management techniques Knowl-edge management tools (e.g., e-mail, the Internet, early alert teams,communities of practice, and capturing and distributing “lessonslearned”) can all be applied in a formal process that will help acompany to sense and respond to potential risks

In fact, despite the increased risk to a corporation’s reputation thatcomes with the new global environment, with all the advancements in

IT, process, and management techniques made in the past twodecades, companies have very little excuse for continuing to take adrubbing because of costly and predictable mistakes when it comes tocorporate integrity issues But all of this means rethinking the waythat the organization approaches the issues of KRM, setting up anethical framework as a company and reorganizing systems andprocesses specifically to focus on preventing ethical disasters

P C

Some organizations, particularly those that are in the front line ofpotential problem areas such as apparel manufacturing, petroleumextraction, or chemicals, have made great strides in developing strongethical programs and a coordinated approach to KRM Many havebeen helped along by adopting the newly emerging standards fortriple–bottom-line reporting, in which the company’s social and envi-ronmental performance is openly measured and monitored This is

particularly true of European companies, with their close ties to nationalgovernments and a broad historical ethos of social responsibility

What can we learn from these companies? What are the key aspects

of their approach? There are four important areas of focus that leadingcompanies incorporate into an integrated ethics and risk managementprogram

The first area of focus is to create an ethical framework In many

ways, this means building on many of the same techniques that havebeen a part of the corporate approach to ethics management over theyears, such as value statements and code of conduct, but it also involvesmuch more One of the most important features of an updated ethicsprocess is to establish the senior executive position of “chief risk andethics officer,” to take overall responsibility for helping to communi-cate the company’s policies in these areas and for monitoring andenforcing adherence to a formal risk management process There alsoneeds to be much more active participation in the ethics and risk man-agement process by the chief executive officer and board members, notonly just for designing and endorsing the ethics and risk policies, butalso for actively participating in risk assessments on an ongoing basis.Combined with a strong program of education and training foremployees and suppliers, this ethical framework creates the founda-tion for conveying a company’s values, setting forth guidelines for thestandards of behavior and levels of risk awareness that are expectedfrom all employees

The second important area of focus for the modern corporation is

to introduce a formal program of enterprise-wide risk management.

This risk management process encourages employees at all levels ofthe organization to take on the responsibility for avoiding unethical

or illegal behavior and for anticipating and alerting their managers topotential problems of noncompliance or danger Combined with riskand incident management software, this process incorporates systemsand techniques that help corporate leaders to monitor the organiza-tion much more effectively and to anticipate and quickly respond topotentially damaging issues

Third, companies are applying knowledge management techniques

that have been developed over the past few years to actively manageemployee and stakeholder knowledge and experience in a way thatcontributes to risk prediction and response analysis In fact, many

experts would contend that risk management is knowledge

manage-ment, in that it is only through the knowledge, experience, and skills

of employees, shared collaboratively, that a company can anticipateand react to reputation-threatening risks A number of systems andknowledge gathering and sharing techniques, when formalized, canprovide the basis for a constant flow of prioritized information fromthose who know to those who need to know As part of a formalprogram of risk and reputation management, knowledge managementtechniques can help to ensure that a company becomes aware ofpotential hot issues before they get out of control

This is where knowledge management techniques and systemsfinally come into the mainstream of management processes, afterstruggling in many ways to find operational legitimacy for the pastseveral years For the first time, knowledge management is somethingmore than a set of practices and systems that simply contributes togreater company efficiency A program of integrated knowledge andrisk management (KRM) is essential to good management of amodern organization In short, “we didn’t know” is no longer anacceptable defense Not having the knowledge management systems

in place becomes the equivalent of negligence

The final area of focus is the application of new international

stan-dards of conduct for social, environmental, corporate governance, and

product safety polices Much like the International Organization forStandardization (ISO) quality and productivity standards that are apart of business today, these guidelines—SA , ISO , andmany others—provide a consistent framework for monitoring andauditing performance in the organization At the same time, whenintegrated well, the very process of applying these standards ofconduct at an operational level not only helps to avoid potentiallydamaging incidents but also helps to turn early warnings of infringe-ments into productivity improvements

Adopting these standards for internal use is something that will

be of value to any organization, but equally important, companies need to report their performance against these standards openly andhonestly for the world to see This “triple–bottom-line” (financial,environmental, and social) reporting provides the company and itsvarious stakeholders with a much more balanced view of company per-formance, marking a shift away from a single focus on financial profitand loss accounting and moving toward a more comprehensive set ofindicators in other areas of performance that indirectly affect thefinancial results, such as corporate governance, ethics, and social andenvironmental policy

Publishing accurate and auditable reports on their performanceagainst these international standards and having those reportsaudited—much as with current financial reports—by an independentthird-party auditor is essential Not only does this reporting processprovide a structure for monitoring ethical operations within thecompany, but equally important, this type of reporting provides auseful way of demonstrating to the market your company’s progres-sive policies Good governance and risk management programs, fairsocial policies, and a concern for environmental sustainability all reflect

a concern for long-term stability

The combined application of these emerging performance dards and triple–bottom-line reporting can greatly change the focus

stan-of your company culture while both protecting and improving yourcorporate reputation It is soon to be required by the European Unionand Japan and is increasingly being demanded by analysts andinvestors as a way of judging the stability and managerial sophistica-tion of companies in which they invest

renewed emphasis on corporate social responsibility has reemerged sostrongly in the past  years This is not simply a reaction to the cor-ruption and overexuberance of the late s The combined effects

of globalization, corporate scandal, new laws, the Internet, landmarklitigation, and the increasing primacy of business in our everyday livesare bringing about a much more fundamental and permanent shift inhow corporations are expected to be governed and to behave Not onlyare expectations for ethical behavior growing, but the repercussions forpoor behavior are becoming more costly

Although the corporate social responsibility movement has beenalive for a number of years, buoyed primarily by environmental andhuman rights pressure groups, these new and separate pressures oncorporations will fundamentally alter many of the management andorganizational practices of the modern corporation and usher in a per-manent shift toward greater legal and social expectations in the next

 to  years Integrated KRM, this new movement, brought on byneeds of a rapidly changing global business climate and new demands

for better behavior, is one of the most important steps in the evolution of

the modern corporation since business process reengineering a decade ago.

In short, corporations are entering a new period in which they will

be expected to behave in a much more socially responsible way than

in the past and will need to be able to prove to a variety of holders—regulators, litigants, pressure groups, customers, and share-holders—that they have in place strong and auditable programs forpreventing social, governance, and environmental and product safetydisasters It is no longer a question of something that a company

stake-“should do” as portrayed by activists Today it is increasingly a tion of what a company “must do” as part of competing in the globalmarketplace

ques-C E



“CIS Reaches Historic Settlement Agreement with Ford and UAW,” Michigan

Newswire, September ,  Available from www.michigan.gov.

 “Cosco, Safety st: Fined $. Million for Failing to Report Product Defects,”

Consumer Affairs, April , ; available from

www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cosco.html.



Heesun Wee, “Corporate Ethics: Right Makes Might,” Businessweek, April , .

Available from www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr/nf_.htm.

 James Altfeld, “Review of, ‘Crisis Management for Corporate Self-Defense’ by Stephen, Albrecht” (AMACOM Books, New York, ) Available from

www.bizsum.com/crisismanagement.htm.



Heesun Wee, “Corporate Ethics: Right Makes Might,” Businessweek, April , .

Available from www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr/nf_.htm.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

it does on quality or productivity programs? The case for action beginswith a look at some of the revolutionary geopolitical, economic, andsocial changes that are changing the environment of the modern corporation.

R A  G R

Globalization is one of the most emotional and least well-definedareas of modern debate A phrase used to cover everything from traderelations to cultural clash, it is broadly associated with capitalism,inequality, exploitation, and western (and particularly American)multinationals In fact, the concept has become so muddled withbroader issues, such as fair trade, sustainability, and even theHIV/Aids pandemic, that it is difficult to pin down any boundaries

to the debate

Whatever else it means though, at the heart of the globalizationdebate lies the reality that western corporations are relocating their production and sales capacities internationally, particularly into



developing economies, in order to take advantage of emerging sumer markets, a low-cost labor supply, lower tax regimes, and lowerlevels of environmental and employment oversight Even if this trendhas not occurred as suddenly or as uniquely as many activists wouldclaim (most studies indicate that international trade has not increasedthat dramatically since the th century and days of imperialism,colonies, and empire), what is undeniably true is that the combination

con-of opportunity and competition has driven companies during the lasttwo decades to either relocate or to contract services from factories,call centers, and sales offices throughout the developing world

In fact, almost every major U.S or European corporation is now,and has been for at least a decade, involved in an expansion of theirproduction and sales functions to overseas markets A company such

as DHL, the parcel delivery service, for example, now operates in countries and territories Some  percent of General Electric’srevenue comes from overseas operations Intel has , employees

in offices sprinkled around  countries Apparel and footwear panies such as Nike, Gap, or Reebok contract production through anetwork of hundreds of different third-party factories, mostly located

com-in these developcom-ing markets These companies may have only a fewthousand direct employees but may engage several hundred thousandworkers indirectly through these third-party relationships

This global expansion has forced companies to change the way theyperceive competition and growth and has required fundamentalchanges to organizational structures, systems, and business processes.But above all, it has forced companies to deal with issues that aresometimes very different from those they encounter in their owndomestic markets (e.g., risks such as corruption, sweat shops, employ-ing children, or nonexistent environmental policies) for which they areincreasingly being held to account by a strong and vocal movementthat has arisen from international organizations, nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs), pressure groups, unions, shareholders, and theinformed public Supported by an increasingly open internationalpress, these “stakeholders” are demanding that corporations adhere to

relo-it the power to overwhelm the undeveloped world, taking advantage

of local employment and resources without regard to human rights,the environment, or the future of those communities And unfortu-nately, far too many incidents have proven these fears to be wellfounded

• Royal Dutch/Shell faced an international outcry when Wiwa, a Nigerian environmentalist, and eight other activists

Saro-in Nigeria were hanged for what appeared to be their politicalopposition to Shell’s local activities Coming on the back ofthe Brent Spar oil platform controversy and amid consumerboycotts of Shell stations and an insistence by Shell

shareholders that there was a difference “betweennoninterference and abrogation of responsibility,” the value ofShell’s brand name and its share price plummeted In Royal Dutch/Shell was fined $ million to pay for an oilspill in the region, and a U.S court has ruled that the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company can be held liable in theUnited States for cooperating in the persecution and

execution of the environmental activists in Nigeria The wholeaffair was a public relations shambles and a shareholders’

nightmare

• When international human rights groups revealed that Nikesupplier factories in Vietnam and Indonesia were employingworkers, sometimes children, at wages as low as  cents anhour for up to  hours a day, Nike’s brand name quicklybecame associated with sweat shops and third-world workerexploitation Under criticism from human rights activists, as

well as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and the New York

I P  E  K M 

Times, Nike has come under almost constant scrutiny for its

overseas manufacturing practices, initially reducing worldwidesales and requiring it to fund an ongoing and expensive publicrelations campaign

Obviously, not all multinationals are guilty of these types of dents, but the reality is that with relocation to a developing marketcomes fundamental new problems in terms of corporate governanceand social and environmental behavior The arguments for and againstglobalization are complex and important, but whatever your particu-lar position as a corporation, it is important to realize that these andsimilar issues mean that your company will probably be facing a chal-lenging future in terms of developing formal social and environmen-tal policies for those overseas operations Ultimately, the way acompany behaves in these areas is much more important than dona-tions to local charities and a Web site boasting of good corporate cit-izenship through philanthropy In short, whatever your position onglobalization, the effect on your company, even companies not directlyinvolved in global affairs, is likely to be a greater need for an ethicalframework, transparency, and nonfinancial reporting

inci-T N I S

As companies and cultures are becoming more globalized, the bination of the Internet and new satellite and cable television tech-nologies has made the distribution of information—instantly fromvirtually anywhere in the world—a part of our day-to-day lives TheInternet has particularly become a medium for quickly and effectivelyrelaying information around the world

com-Nowhere has the use of these new communication technologiesbeen put to greater effect than by pressure groups in their prompt and dramatic exposure of corporate offenses A quick search for

“corporate social responsibility” (CSR) over the Web demonstrateshow very effective the Internet has become in this regard With

hundreds of Web pages, chat sites, and discussion groups active onvarious social and environmental issues, companies are named andshamed

“Each day,” Kalle Lasn, editor of Adbusters magazine, candidly

explains, “information about Nike flows freely via e-mail between theU.S National Labour Committee and Campaign for Labour Rights;the Dutch-based Clean Clothes Campaign; the Australian FairwearCampaign; and many others spread throughout the world.”

From the Brazilian rain forests to Nigeria, and from the diamondmines of South Africa to the oil fields in Alaska, company activitiesare mercilessly monitored by an increasingly powerful and effectivecadre of activists who quickly relay information worldwide, into col-laborative activist networks, to lobbyists, to government agencies, and

to the press

“Given developments in the electronic media and the Internet,”affirms Dr Brendan O’Dwyer at Dublin City University BusinessSchool, “these companies claim they now operate in a ‘goldfish bowl’environment or ‘CNN world’ where no organization is able to shieldits activities from the public gaze and from criticism in the widersociety.”

This ability to name and shame companies, suddenly and forcefullybrought about through the Internet and global television coverage,provides companies with a powerful incentive to protect their reputa-tion through better behavior

P G A

One of the most important new pressures for better business behavior to emerge in the past decade, of course, comes from theincreasingly powerful and effective collection of pressure groups thatmonitor corporate behavior NGOs such as Greenpeace, Oxfam,Amnesty International, CorpWatch, and the World Wildlife Fund (to name only a few) are increasingly able to uncover things on a new and unprecedented scale—poor employment policies, unethical

I P  E  K M 

investments, and environmental exploitation—that companies pected to be able to keep hidden from public view only a decade ago.Better financed and managed than in the past, these professionalpressure groups have been able to attract capable and dedicatedemployees who can match wits and tactics with a corporation’s publicrelations or legal machine Once perceived by many as extreme, in light

ex-of continued bad behavior by companies, these groups today are widelyrespected for their efforts In Europe, for example, NGOs generallyare now rated by the public as more highly regarded than leading busi-nesses by a margin of nearly two to one In a recent study conducted

by Edelman Public Relations Worldwide, Amnesty International, theWorld Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace scored between  and percent on “trust” among the public, where even the most highlyregarded companies (e.g., Microsoft, Bayer, Shell, and Ford) rankedonly between  and  percent. Nike provides a good example of thephenomenon

“In a September  press release,” explains John Samuel, fromInfoChange, “Nike dismissed its critics as ‘fringe groups.’ But byMarch  it was ready to treat Nike’s online critics with morerespect It introduced yet another package of labour reforms andadmitted, ‘You make changes because it’s the right thing to do Butobviously our actions have been accelerated because of the WorldWide Web.’ ”

IdealsWork.com is another good example of how pressure groupsare forcing companies toward better behavior An online shopping site,IdealsWork.com provides information on the CSR performance ofcompanies so that consumers can review a company’s behavior beforebuying its product

“Until now, information on companies’ social and environmentalrecords has only been available to the investment community, and hasbeen used primarily by socially responsible investors,” explains DanPorter, co-CEO “IdealsWork.com has made this information conve-niently available to consumers for the first time Now, through ourpartnership with UFE (United for a Fair Economy), we are provid-

ing important additional information on corporate accountability that

we think consumers want in the aftermath of Enron and recent corporate scandals.”

The site rates companies based on their performance in such areas

as labor practices, human rights, diversity, and the environment, and

it has created a “Top  Worst” list for corporate offenders, listingcompanies that have committed unethical (“Enronesque” in theirterms) behavior including high levels of political campaign contribu-tions and lobbying expenditures, corporate tax avoidance, require-ments for in-company K plan investments by employees, andcombined consulting and auditing work being contracted from thesame accounting group.

It is just this type of thing that makes company executives nervous

And rightly so, points out Rob Harrison, co-editor of Ethical

Con-sumer The thing every company fears most is becoming the target of

these powerful pressure groups or making one of the “Top Ten Worst”lists

“So, rather than wait for it to happen,” he explains, “managers are taking preemptive action in the form of environmental productdevelopment and labeling, or engaging in such ideas as codes ofconduct and social audits.”

T I P  I a S

The rise of the Internet has had other unexpected consequences onthe modern corporation As it has become possible to monitor andtrade stocks in “real time” over the Internet, share ownership hasexpanded enormously, providing the opportunity for millions of citizens to buy and sell shares from their homes With institutional andindividual investments combined, more than  million Americansnow own shares This means that company ownership is now spreadamong nearly one third of the population, with most of these investorshaving a keen and newly discovered interest in a company’s behavior.The United States is not alone, of course During the past decade,

I P  E  K M 

financial markets have expanded throughout Europe and Asia Fiftypercent of Australian adults (. million people) own shares in theirown name or through a managed fund. In Sweden, nearly  percent

of adults own stock, the highest rate of public share ownership in theworld

With this level of popular management and ownership of shares, itseems intuitive that companies will have become much more suscep-tible than ever before to incidents that might damage their reputationand send their share value plummeting Well-publicized cases demon-strate what scandal can do to a share price Martha Stewart’s LivingOmnimedia lost  percent in the first  days in June  when shefirst faced allegations of insider trading with ImClone ElectronicData System’s stock fell  percent in  day on news of a Securitiesand Exchange Commission (SEC) probe When HealthSouthrestated its earnings in August , the company’s shares fell percent in  day When news broke of an SEC investigation for insidertrading, the company’s shares plunged a further  percent. In fact, arecent study from the University of Southwestern Louisiana estimatedthat unethical corporate behavior lowers stock prices for a minimum

of  months.

Often only marginally informed about the companies in which theyown shares, individual traders are particularly susceptible to negativereports about companies that appear in the press They are easilyswayed by the opinions of popular analysts or by reports of misman-agement or executive scandal, and the announcement of litigation or

an environmental or employment violation reported on the eveningnews can mean an after-dinner rush to the computer to sell, sendingshare prices spiraling downward the next morning Even if they have

no genuine concern about the morality or rightful responsibility of theincident itself, everyone knows that scandal will harm the share value.Even institutional investors are drawn into the panic, aware that what-ever the inherent value of the stock, negative reports tend to create arun on company shares

There is another important aspect to this popular investment nomenon The combination of poor governance, inaccurate financialreporting, and the collapse of the dot-com bubble has meant that bil-lions of dollars have been lost by investors during the past few years,the sort of thing that makes investors crave accurate, verifiable infor-mation from companies Accordingly, investors (particularly institu-tional investors) want to know about the quality of a company’smanagement team, its approach to corporate governance, and increas-ingly, the company’s position on volatile issues such as employmentconditions in developing world sites or environmental policies indeveloping countries The more institutional investors can learndependably from a company’s reporting process, the more likely theyare to be willing to invest in company shares A recent Harris Inter-active poll, for example, found that  percent of Americans claim

phe-to consider corporate citizenship issues when they make investmentdecisions.

But such is the mistrust of companies by the investment nity following the  scandals, that this type of information is useful(and believable) only if it is based on internationally approved com-parable standards, verified in turn by independent and credible third-party auditors That is why a company that adopts a formal ethics andKRM process and applies independently verified triple–bottom-linereporting standards stands out as progressive and transparent (the veryattributes that investors like to see in a company)